Tag Archives: BEAD Grants

Walking Away from BEAD

NTIA has released all but four states to begin signing BEAD contracts with grant winners. Mississippi and Oklahoma have gotten final approval by NTIA but are waiting for approval from NIST. NTIA has still not approved the grant proposals from California and Illinois.

Now that the process of negotiating contracts for grant winners has started, news is seeping out of some grant winners backing out and refusing to accept the BEAD grant awards.

The largest BEAD award being rejected is by Astound in Texas, which is walking away from $166 million in grants. The company explained this by saying that it had only won five of the thirty-three project areas it had applied for, and that the remote geographic areas of the awards made no sense without winning more awards. I have to wonder if the company’s pending merger with Google Fiber also played a role in the company walking away. While it isn’t official, I’ve heard through the grapevine that Astound is also going to walk away from $112 million of BEAD grants in Oregon. The company has also tentatively won $100 million in Washington.

Another ISP walking away from a lot of awards is Resound Networks. Resound is walking away from $60.2 million in New Mexico, $23.1 million in Texas, $8 million in Kansas, $5.2 million in Arkansas, and $3.9 million in Colorado. The company also has relatively small grants in Arizona and Oklahoma. Resound is tentatively slated to win $34.4 million in California, which still has not been approved by NTIA.

There are three ISPs that haven’t signed grant contracts in Nebraska: Amazon, Northeast Nebraska Telephone Company, and Pinpoint Communications. I have to wonder what it means for a satellite company to not accept a grant, since the company has grant awards across the country.

There are bound to be other ISPs who will walk away that we haven’t yet heard about, since States have six months to get contracts from grant winners after the State signed a contract with NTIA for the BEAD money. I’ve been hearing about a lot of smaller ISPs that are still thinking about walking away from BEAD. Some will do so because the too-low grant funding means they can’t get a letter of credit.

It won’t be surprising if there are more rejections of BEAD. When NTIA initiated the Benefit of the Bargain rules, it significantly sliced the amount of grant funding per location. Many ISPs had said before Benefit of the Bargain that the long-term math for taking BEAD grants was marginal. That math took a big turn for the worse when NTIA forced the States to further lower the amount of grant awards. Any ISP that stays after the Benefit of the Bargain is accepting a smaller margin than they originally had hoped for.

At the same time that the amount of grant awards has been squeezed downward, ISPs are seeing inflation in the cost of fiber construction – inflation much higher than the rate of increase for the whole economy. The Fiber Broadband Association conducted a survey with members at the end of 2025 and asked about expected increases in construction costs for 2026. 88% of the respondents expected a cost increase for construction in 2026. 62% of respondents expected a ‘slight’ cost increase of less than 10%. 26% expect a cost increase of more than 10%. 9% expect costs to stay the same, and 3% expect costs to decrease by less than 10%.

It will be interesting to see how ISPs respond to this same question at the end of 2026. The industry is being pounded by increases in chip costs due to shortages as chip manufacturers have pivoted to building AI chips. Higher oil prices have affected the cost of shipping and operating work vehicles, and oil is a raw material component of things like fiber sheathing, conduit, and electronics housings. There is a lot of pressure this year from wage increases. The Federal Reserve made it clear last week that it will not be lowering interest rates this year and may have to instead increase them by year’s end.

We’re still seeing defaults six years after the initial RDOF awards, and I expect there will be ISPs that accept BEAD now but realize in a few years that they can’t make the math work.

I feel sorry for State Broadband Offices that are being asked to find replacements for ISPs that reject BEAD awards. It feels unlikely that NTIA will allow States to increase the size of the grant awards after a rejection. Every default could become a windfall for satellite companies, while a lot of communities are losing the chance to get fiber.

Proposed New Rules for Federal Grants

The Office of Management and Budget has proposed new rules for the Guidance of Federal Financial Assistance. These proposed rules would apply to a large percentage of federal grants awarded to States or directly to grantees. In the broadband world, the new rules would apply to grants made by the FCC, NTIA, U.S. Treasury, and the USDA. They would also apply to any secondary grants made through states, such as state broadband grants made using underlying federal funds. That means these rules impact BEAD, RDOF, ReConnect, Capital Project Fund grants, and the various NTIA broadband grants. The new rules would also apply to any payments made from federal programs to the public, which are not strictly considered as grants, such as E-Rate payments made to schools and libraries, and Lifeline payments made to reduce broadband bills.

This blog covers a few highlights of the proposed changes. For more details, see this comprehensive summary created by the Benton Institute. Comments on the proposed rules are due by July 13. The new rules are proposed to go into effect on October 1, 2026.

The new rules are intended to meet three objectives. This supposedly will improve transparency, accountability, and oversight. OMB says the changes will reduce recipient burden. Probably most importantly, OMB is taking charge of grants, and what the agency used to issue as guidance will now become binding regulation.

The following are some of the most important changes that could affect broadband:

  • One of the most consequential proposed changes is that the new rules expand the ability for federal agencies to cancel a grant mid-stream. This would apply to all discretionary grants (which are grants where a federal agency chooses the grant winners). There is a carve out and special rules for BEAD, for the CHIPs Act, and for block grants, formula grants, and disaster recovery grants. This is a huge change, because it means the federal government can stop a broadband infrastructure grant at any time – making it even riskier to take grant funding.
  • There would no longer be any fixed amount awards, and all grant expenditures have to be substantiated by invoices.
  • All grant recipients would have to participate in the E-Verify system, which would mean verifying the eligibility of employees and all subcontractors for receiving payments from federal funds. This new requirement also seems aligned with the new requirement that no grant funds can be used to reimburse payments to any person or company from a “covered” country, meaning countries on a list of countries that can be changed at any time.
  • The new rules completely eliminate any grant provisions that would promote DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility) based on race or sex.
  • Agencies and grant recipients will be expected to ensure that federal grant funds are not used to promote or support “theories of disparate-impact liability”. In plain English, that means grants can’t be used in a way that results in any discrimination by race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Grant recipients are also not to discriminate on the basis of “viewpoint, content, or subject matter of speech”, including political, ideological, or religious affiliation.
  • The new rules add a new layer of bureaucracy by requiring that every grant be approved by a senior political appointee. All grant awards are also expected to demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.
  • All else being equal, grants should be awarded to entities with the lowest indirect cost rates.
  • Pass-through entities (like a State Broadband Office) must ensure that grant recipients do not take actions that could damage the reputation of the grant pass-through agency or the federal government.

What are the practical results if these changes are implemented? While one stated goal is to reduce the burden on grant recipients, these changes would significantly increase paperwork. The proposed rules also increase the risk of accepting grant funding since a grant can be canceled at any time for violating the new political and social grant rules. Probably the most insidious proposed rules are that grant awards would have to pass several political sniff tests to be awarded, rather than being made on merit.

The big picture is that this is a clear attempt by OMB, which is part of the Executive branch, to take over the grant process. The vast majority of grants are created by federal legislation, and this would allow the executive branch to override grant rules created by Congress.

NTIA Trying to Regulate Through BEAD

NTIA has circulated guidance to BEAD winners titled BEAD Subgrantees: Protect Your Rights. Most of the two-page document is fairly routine stuff, but it also includes a bizarre section discussing permitting. The overall tenor of the document is odd in that it invites an ISP to directly contact NTIA if it thinks the contract offered by a State Broadband Office contradicts NTIA policy.

The document starts with a reminder that States can’t engage in ratemaking and demand specific rates in a BEAD contract. NTIA’s position on the issue is not controversial since rate regulation was prohibited in the original IIJA legislation that created BEAD. What is unusual is to see NTIA making a big deal out of this topic. My guess is that the NTIA guidance is mostly aimed at New York, where large ISPs that won BEAD are also subject to a state law that mandates a cap of $15 per month for qualifying low-income subscribers. Perhaps NTIA is hoping to goad one of the large ISPs in New York to use BEAD as a chance to challenge the state law, although the Supreme Court has twice refused to accept challenges to the legislation.

The guidance also alerts ISPs that each state is required to create a permitting roundtable where ISPs that encounter delays in permitting can discuss delays and fees. NTIA also seems to be reminding ISPs that States are required to document any problems encountered in implementing BEAD projects in semi-annual reports.

Where I think NTIA went off the rails is a set of requirements related to permitting:

  • NTIA wants a 90-day shot clock for the approval or rejection of permitting requests.
  • Grant winners can demand a single, dedicated point of contact for broadband-related permits.
  • Permits must allow the construction techniques chosen by the grant winner.
  • Batch processing of permit requests must be allowed.
  • Grant winners must not be subjected to unnecessarily duplicative or burdensome permitting requirements.

I find these requirements to be odd since NTIA doesn’t have the regulatory authority to specify permitting rules. For the most part, States also don’t control permitting rules and processes, which are left up to local jurisdictions. It’s highly questionable in most States if the Broadband Office can even assert any real influence over permitting practices for State highways.

NTIA has no authority to demand a permitting shot clock. NTIA can’t mandate that localities accept construction plans from grant winners. For example, what if a grant winner wants to bury fiber one foot deep instead of the locally-demanded three-foot depth? There are plenty of localities that won’t allow large-scale construction using trenching with a backhoe to bury fiber. Many local jurisdictions might be skeptical of microtrenching. Most localities will expect BEAD winners to abide by the same rules that apply to other telcos and utilities.

The last bullet point might be the most troubling since nobody knows what a ‘burdensome’ permitting requirement is. Is NTIA planning to intervene in disputes over local permitting rules that a grant winner doesn’t like?

NTIA also wants States to agree that permitting fees must be set at an approximation of actual cost. This is something that Congress could tackle, but any federal law demanding this would be heavily challenged in court.

The requirement that will get the most pushback is the requirement that a grant winner that also owns pole becomes subject to state or FCC pole attachment regulation by accepting the BEAD grant. As a reminder, cooperatives and municipalities are not subject to most pole attachment rules. NRECA, an association of electric cooperatives, wrote this letter to Commerce Secretary Lutnick, warning that many cooperatives will walk away from BEAD awards rather than let themselves be subject to pole attachment regulations.

I have to wonder if any BEAD grant winner will actually complain to NTIA to try to get a State to enforce permitting requirements or fees. I have to think that a State’s reaction to such a complaint would be to put that grant project on hold until the issue is resolved, which could take years and could even run out the five-year BEAD timeline.

The funniest part about the drama related to permitting is that very few, if any, local rural jurisdictions will make it hard for BEAD winners to get permits. Rural counties want better broadband infrastructure, and most counties I know will bend over backward to speed up the process. These odd NTIA rules don’t address the real source of the real permitting problems, which are railroad crossings, bridges, and state and federal lands. I’m honestly scratching my head, wondering why NTIA wrote this guidance. But BEAD has been odd since the beginning, so I guess there is no reason to stop the oddness now.

Satellite Update April 2026

There is so much news and activity in the satellite sector that I find myself gathering a pile of news items each month. Here are some of the highlights from April.

Amazon Entering Direct-to-Device Market. Amazon announced it has signed an agreement to buy Globalstar for $10.8 billion. Globalstar is one of the early leaders in developing technology for providing direct-to-device services to smartphones and other devices. Globalstar currently has about two dozen satellites in orbit.

Jeff Bezos Enters the Space Data Center Race. Jeff Bezos’s rocket company Blue Origin has applied to the FCC to launch a data center in space. The application asks for approval to launch 51,600 satellites that would constitute a huge AI data center. The company argues that a data center in space will complement terrestrial data centers and will give the U.S. the edge in machine learning, autonomous systems, and predictive analytics. The satellites would be placed between 300 and 1,100 miles above Earth, with most of them higher than broadband satellites. This announcement follows a proposal from SpaceX and Elon Musk to put a million data center satellites in space.

Growing Feud Between SpaceX and Amazon Leo. We’re seeing a budding regulatory rivalry between the two American broadband satellite companies. It seems that both SpaceX and Amazon Leo file comments about anything filed by its rival at the FCC. Earlier this month, SpaceX filed comments at the FCC complaining that Amazon Leo is violating the FCC’s orbital space debris mitigation plans. SpaceX claims that Amazon Leo placed several satellites 90 kilometers higher than authorized by the FCC. In a similar complaint, Amazon LEO accused SpaceX of placing satellites too low into its authorized space. Both companies have made negative comments on the other’s plans to create a satellite-based AI data center in space.

Will Starlink Honor BEAD? A group of House Democrats sent a letter to the NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth that raises concerns that SpaceX might not meet its BEAD obligations. The letter was prompted by letters sent by SpaceX to various state broadband offices that said the company doesn’t want to comply with various BEAD reporting requirements. The legislators fear that Starlink will walk away from BEAD, leaving locations with no broadband alternative (although these customers can buy satellite broadband regardless of the BEAD grants).

Failed Satellite Launch. A Blue Origin rocket failed to place a satellite for AST Space Mobile into the proper orbit, and the satellite had to be de-orbited. It was expected that insurance would be used to recover the cost of the lost satellite.

Amazon Leo to Launch Service in Mid-2026? The company said earlier this month that it is still planning to begin offering broadband service by mid-2026. That seems like an extraordinary claim since the company still had around 240 satellites in orbit as of the date of this blog. By comparison, Starlink had almost 900 satellites in service when it began beta tests with customers. At the time, the beta test customers described noticeable gaps in coverage between satellites. What’s most interesting about the announcement is that Amazon has asked the FCC for a two-year delay in meeting the full deployment obligation for its first constellation of over 3,200 satellites.

Environmental Protesters. Residents who live close to SpaceX’s Starbase launch site recently protested during a meeting centered on SpaceX’s planned IPO. The residents of the area complained about the repeated vibrations and pollution caused by regular rocket launches, along with concern about possible fires set in the arid South Texas landscape.

Denied Spectrum Sharing. The FCC recently denied requests from multiple satellite companies that wanted to share in spectrum bands already being used by other entities. As an example of the rejection, SpaceX had asked to share in the 1.5 GHz, 1.6/2.4 GHz, and 2 GHz bands. Other satellite companies had asked to share other spectrum bands. The FCC rejection said these requests were premature and that the agency needs to revise the way it allocates spectrum to accommodate direct-to-device service.

BEAD Rule Changes for Permitting

NTIA issued new General Terms and Conditions dated November 2025 that include dozens of changes to the BEAD rules for recipients, but also changes that impact state Broadband Offices that have wider implications on States. I’m not listing all of the changes here, but there is a great summary of the changes done by the Benton Institute on January 14. This blog will look at the issues related to permitting that have repercussions far outside of the BEAD grant recipients.

In Section 13.D of the revised NTIA Terms and Conditions, State Broadband Offices (SBOs – which are described as Grantees by the NTIA) have a lot of major new obligations related to permitting.

SBOs must “establish procedures to ensure that broadband-related permit applications are promptly accepted, and requests are approved or denied within 90 days”.

In general, SBOs don’t hold a position of authority in State governments to impose rules on anybody other than recipients of grants. Permits for BEAD will mostly mean getting permits to build along existing roads. SBOs are going to have to agree to this requirement, but it’s hard to imagine how an SBO can impose rules for State roads, County roads, Township roads, Municipal roads, roads through Tribal lands, and the biggest challenge – roads passing through federal lands. The goal of getting permits completed within 90 days is great, but it’s hard to think that the small number of people working in SBOs even know the identity of the many permitting authorities in a state, let alone can have any influence, other than perhaps begging, to get BEAD permitting authorities to meet the 90-day deadline. An even bigger challenge is permitting on private land, since a lot of rural roads are privately owned. What can an SBO possibly do to influence private permits?

SBOs must assist “state and local authorities in establishing a single, dedicated point of contact, which has knowledge of the application and review processes, for broadband-related permits.

The key word in this requirement is ‘assist”. Assuming that States even want to go through this process, they vary widely in how this would be achieved. There are States where a Governor might be able to do this. There are States where a State Regulatory Commission might have the authority to tackle this. But in many States, this might require action for a Legislature. What happens in States that don’t undertake the formation of a single, dedicated point of contact?

SBOs must provide technical assistance to permitting agencies to ensure sufficient capacity (e.g., Master Agreement and Consultant Reimbursement Agreement templates, surge support for permit processing, etc.)

This recognizes that local governments often will not have enough staff to quickly process all of the permits required by a BEAD project. SBOs must develop template contracts that can assist a locality if it wants to get help to speed up permitting. But this doesn’t address the issue and time required by local governments when hiring outside vendors. It doesn’t address if a local government has a budget for additional help. Interestingly, this extra funding could come in some states from BED nondeployment funds, assuming there is enough such funding for the purpose.

SBOs must provide “deference to the construction techniques chosen by BEAD Subgrantees (without seeking to influence those decisions), absent any identified safety concerns.

I don’t know if anybody, except perhaps for big ISPs that might have suggested this language to NTIA, really knows what this means, other than allowing construction practices that would otherwise not be allowed by pole owners or by the governments who control the rights-of-way for buried construction. SBOs are being directed to turn their heads to what would normally be non-compliant construction techniques. I’m not sure how pole owners and rights-of-way owners will be expected to comply with this.

SBOs must maximize “streamlined processing through permitting by rule; batch processing of substantially similar permit requests; and waiving or expediting duplicative or burdensome broadband permitting requirements where possible.”

SBOs can certainly promote language that allows batch processing. But, related to the staffing issue addressed earlier, how might a County with little or no staffing be expected to comply with big batches of permits? Even more confounding, are SBOs expected to look at local rules for permitting across the state to identify the ones that are duplicative or burdensome – and what do they do when they identify such rules?

SBOs must follow “FCC rules regarding timelines, rates, terms, and conditions for access to municipally owned poles and conduit for broadband projects – including provisions in the FCC’s rules providing for “one-touch make-ready” and “self-help” – and requiring BEAD Subgrantees that own poles (including cooperatives) to comply with FCC rules across their footprint.”

Around 23 states and D.C. have decided to have their own pole attachment rules, something that has been allowed by federal legislation. While most of these rules are largely the same as the FCC rules, many differ in substantive ways. How can an SBO in a state with its own pole regulation somehow force the State to suddenly follow the FCC rules. The specific requirement cites self-help and one-touch make ready, which are some of rules where States have taken a decidedly different stance than the FCC.

Overall impression of these requirements. SBOs will clearly try to follow these requirements since they must agree to them before they get BEAD funding. But these rules create huge problems for SBOs that don’t have the authority and muscle to impose these rules on the rest of the State and on the many entities that are involved in permitting. To some degree, the severity of these rules, when judged against the practical chance of an SBO accomplishing them, seems like a tool for NTIA to be able to say that any selected State has failed its obligations. I assume that if NTIA tries to withhold funding to a State based on these rules that it will be sued, but that means BEAD goes on hold in that State, to the detriment of the many rural residents relying on better broadband. Interestingly, none of these rules hinders satellite BEAD winners.

BEAD on Hold?

It appears that NTIA missed an important step when it generated the new BEAD rules in June in the BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice. That is the document that changed the scoring of BEAD grants from using a dozen different scoring criteria to choose grant winners to a new method that focused on the character of the proposed technology (priority or not) and the cost per passing.

On December 14, NTIA got a ruling from the GAO that the changes made by NTIA in the Policy Notice are outside of the scope of NTIA’s authority. According to the decision from the GAO, a major change like the one implemented by NTIA requires approval by both Congress and the Comptroller General.

Agencies like NTIA are subject to the Congressional Records Act (CRA), which defines the administrative process that government agencies must follow to change rules. The GAO says that NTIAs Policy Notice implements, interprets, and prescribes law or policy, which triggers provisions of the CRA. The Policy Notice not only affected changes within NTIA of how it administers the BEAD program, but it changed the process of how Eligible Entities (State Broadband Offices) go about seeking funding under the program.

The GAO letter lists the possible ways that NTIA could be exempt from seeking Congressional approval and concluded that none of the exemptions apply to NTIA’s Policy Notice changes. The key trigger for the GAO ruling was that the rule changes created a substantial effect on non-agency parties, meaning States and ISPs.

The conclusion of the GAO is as follows: “The Policy Notice is a rule for purposes of CRA because it meets the definition of a rule under APA and no CRA exception applies. Therefore, the Policy Notice is subject to CRA’s requirement that it be submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General before it can take effect.”

The bottom line of this ruling is that NTIA had no authority to unilaterally change the BEAD rules in such a drastic fashion. The BEAD rules in the IIJA legislation were specific, and the changes NTIA ordered with the Policy Notice were significant enough to require NTIA to seek Congressional approval before making the changes.

This is an interesting twist. In normal times, this would mean that NTIA would have to put BEAD on hold until this is resolved. NTIA would not be able to enforce the changes in the Policy Notice, and if Congress didn’t approve the NTIA changes, the BEAD program would probably reset to the status in June before the Policy Notice. It would mean that all of the changes to grant scoring and the requirements for States to determine priority technologies would be invalid. It would means all tentative grant awards made under the revised rules are invalid. States would probably have to re-score grant applications under the original BEAD rules for selecting winners.

But we don’t live in normal times, and this Administration is currently ignoring the rules of the Congressional Records Act in many other venues and programs. So what does this mean? It may mean nothing, and NTIA might just ignore this GAO decision. This might trigger action from Congress. There has been a lot of unhappiness that the amount of grant awards was trimmed so drastically. This decision certainly gives an actionable reason for anybody who wants to take NTIA to court to halt the BEAD process during litigation. Like everything associated with BEAD, awards made under the new rules are going to be under a cloud, and that makes everybody uncomfortable.

Predictions for 2026

The following are my predictions for 2026. I noticed that after I wrote this, the overall tenor of the list is negative. I’m generally pretty upbeat, but I can’t find fault with any of the predictions.

Federal Regulators Will Continue to Ignore Congress. Federal broadband regulators will continue to ignore Congressional legislation. This past year, the FCC ignored a Congressional edict to lower inmate calling rates. NTIA is ignoring Congress by withholding grant funding for the Digital Equity Act, and is likely to provide little or no funding for BEAD non-deployment funds. Expect similar actions in 2026.

Further Erosion of BEAD. NTIA is not done trying to whittle down the size of BEAD grant funding. The agency already whacked funding with the Benefit of the Bargain rule changes, along with numerous other actions. I expect NTIA to pull more rabbits out of the hat and find more excuses to deny funding to some states for issues like net neutrality, state permitting rules, or state regulation of AI.

Major Spectrum Battles. Congress instructed the FCC to find 800 megahertz of mid-range spectrum for auction. That means potentially reclaiming CBRS spectrum used for rural broadband and 6 GHz spectrum that is just starting to be implemented for WiFi 7. Cellular lobbyists preempted the normal deliberations on spectrum management and got the biggest item on their wish list included in the Big Beautiful Bill. I don’t expect opponents of the spectrum grab to go down without a big fight.

FWA Will Have Another Strong Year. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon just had the biggest quarterly gain of new customers yet, adding over 1 million net new FWA customers in the third quarter of 2025. I predict the three companies will continue to add over 900,000 customers per quarter in 2026, and even more if we see a softening of the economy.

Universal Service Fund Reform Will Stall. Congress is considering badly needed changes to the Universal Service Fund. In the current political chaos in Congress, I predict that a USF bill will never make it through the legislative process.   

Big ISPs Will Have Record Cash Windfalls. There hasn’t been a lot of industry press about the bonus depreciation change included in the Big Beautiful Bill. This allows ISPs to quickly write off current fiber construction, which will cut tax liabilities and generate big cash bonuses for the biggest ISPs in 2026. I predict much of the windfall will be used to buy back stock rather than invest in new networks.

Big ISPs Will All Raise Rates. You might think that in a weakened economy, where the cost of living is the number one issue with the public, ISPs might hold off on rate increases. But the recent $5 across-the-board rate increase by AT&T for fiber will be the first of many significant rate increases during the coming year.

A Federal Regulator Will Declare that the Rural Broadband Gap has Been Solved. I don’t know if it will be the FCC or NTIA, but I expect one of the federal broadband regulators to declare that the rural broadband gap has been solved because of the many grant programs and because everybody can now buy satellite broadband. Arielle Roth already hinted at this when she said in a speech that the mission of BEAD “is nothing less than to close the digital divide once and for all”.

Grants Should Look Forward

State Broadband Offices had to go through a process this year of deciding if various technologies qualify for grant purposes as priority projects. A priority technology must meet the following requirement: Provide broadband service that meets speed, latency, reliability, consistency in quality of service, and related criteria as the Assistant Secretary shall determine; and ensure that the network built by the project can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses and support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced services.

NTIA chose a speed of 100/20 Mbps as the metric for meeting the current test of a priority technology. This is convenient, since this was the declared speed that the legislation said a BEAD-funded technology must be able to deliver. Today’s blog asks if that definition is adequate.

One way to consider what the current speed of broadband should be is to look at historical trends. For many years, Cisco issued reports that regularly reported that the demand for speed was growing at roughly 21% per year for residential broadband, and a little faster for business broadband. Cisco and others noted that the demand for broadband speeds was on a relatively straight line back to the early 1980s.

It’s not hard to test the Cisco long-term growth rate. The following table applies a 21% growth rate to the 25/3 Mbps definition of broadband established by the FCC in 2015.This table is somewhat arbitrary since it assumes that broadband demand in 2015 was exactly 25 Mbps – but there was widespread praise of the new definition at that time, other than from ISPs who wanted to stick with the 4/1 Mbps definition. This simple table accurately predicted that we would be talking about the need to increase the definition of broadband to 100 Mbps download around 2022, which is exactly what happened. The FCC did not have a fifth Commissioner at the time and wasn’t able to make the change until March 2024 – but in 2022, the FCC wanted to change the definition of broadband to 100 Mbps download, which was at a 21% compounded annual growth rate from the definition of broadband the FCC had established in 2015.

I can’t think of any fundamental industry changes that would change the historical growth rate in the near future. We’ve certainly seen a big demand to buy faster broadband products. Consider the following chart that starts with the assumption that 100 Mbps was the right definition of broadband in 2022. Growing that number over time by the same 21% results in the following table. What does this table suggest for BEAD and other grant?. Consider the evaluation of Starlink, which is the technology that is closest to meeting or not meeting the needed speed. Ookla released a report in the first quarter of 2025 showing that the median speed on Starlink was 104.71 Mbps download and 14.84 Mbps upload, and that only 17% of Starlink customers in the first quarter fully met the 100/20 Mbps speed threshold.

The table above suggests that the current definition of broadband in 2025 should be something like 177/35 Mbps. It’s debatable if Starlink meets the 100/20 Mbps test today, but it clearly doesn’t meet a test based on the speed demand in 2025.

The BEAD future-looking test is challenging because nobody defined what future-looking means. I can think of two definitions of forward-looking that might make sense. One is to judge what speeds should be delivered when the grant project has been constructed, which for most BEAD projects will be at the end of 2029. The growth chart suggests that the speed for defining broadband in 2029 will be around 380/76 Mbps.

I think a better forward-looking test for a government-sponsored grant should be that a grant-funded network should still be relevant a decade after a grant is awarded. The chart suggests the desired speed should be 1191/238 Mbps in 2035.

Naysayers will argue that the 21% growth in speed demand can’t be sustained. Consider taking a more conservative approach that cuts the historical growth rate in half. That conservative approach would say that a target speed for a grant-funded project would be 195/30 Mbps in 2029 and 345/69 Mbps in 2035. I have nothing to go on except my gut, which tells me that 345/69 Mbps will feel inadequate in 2035.

Why BEAD to Kuiper?

There is no question that this has turned into one of the oddest years for broadband during my career. We’ve seen Digital Equity grants killed. We’re seeing the spending for BEAD being cut in half. And maybe oddest of all, we’re seeing States make sizeable BEAD grant awards to Kuiper, although the company isn’t close to having its first broadband customer.

You might think we should have learned a lesson from when Starlink was a big winner in the RDOF reverse auction. The FCC eventually killed those awards after it determined that Starlink was not ready to fulfill a major commitment to serve large numbers of locations in specific geographies.

As of the date of this blog, Kuiper has 153 working satellites in orbit. It has scheduled launches of an additional 72 satellites before the end of the year. It’s worth noting that previous planned launches have all been seriously delayed.

Kuiper was granted permission in July 2020 to deploy a constellation of 3,236 satellites. The satellites will be deployed at three altitudes of 370 miles, 380 miles, and 390 miles. The company says it will begin beta testing when it reaches 578 satellites deployed at 390 miles. To put this into perspective, Starlink launched commercial service when it reached 1,260 satellites. Even with that number, early Starlink customers complained about short service lapses between satellites. Kuiper is under pressure from the FCC to have 1,618 satellites in orbit by mid-2026 to maintain its spectrum licenses.

For the last month, I’ve been perplexed by the magnitude of the BEAD awards being made to Kuiper. As of the date of this blog, Kuiper has tentative BEAD awards for 324,000 locations, second only to Starlink at 427,000. The next biggest award winner is Comcast with 233,000 locations. These are tentative awards, and NTIA is still reviewing and may reject some of the tentative awards to fiber, which would likely increase the awards to satellite.

Kuiper is not nearly as ready as Starlink was with RDOF. The RDOF reverse auction closed at the end of 2020, and Starlink invited selected customers from its waiting list to try the service in January 2021. Starlink started taking pre-orders nationwide in April 2021. Starlink could finally reach every part of the lower 48 states in March 2022.

One of the oddest things about Kuiper is that nobody knows how fast the service will be until it is deployed. Early Starlink customers received speeds that were faster than advertised, but speeds went downhill quickly as customer additions outpaced satellite deployments.

Starlink is only now on the cusp of delivering consistent 100/20 Mbps broadband. According to a report from Ookla, Starlink speed tests in the second quarter of 2022 showed a median download speed of 53.95 Mbps, meaning half of customers had speeds faster than that speed, and half were slower. Median upload speeds in that quarter were 7.5 Mbps. In the first quarter of 2025, Ookla reported that Starlink had climbed to a median broadband speed of 104.71 Mbps download and 14.84 Mbps upload, nearly double the speeds in 2022. The Ookla report said that only 17.4 % of Starlink customers fully met the FCC definition of broadband of 100/20 Mbps per second, with the limiting factor for many customers being slow upload speeds.

I saw a recent quote from a State broadband manager, when asked why he made an award to Kuiper, said it was because they bid the lowest cost per passing. That seems like a cynical response, and it makes me wonder if State Broadband Managers have thrown up their hands and are just following NTIA’s rules without questions.

The chances are good that Kuiper will complete the constellation and will eventually deliver satellite broadband. But history has also shown that new technology companies are often late in meeting commitments and sometimes fail altogether. The BEAD grant process is taking a big chance that Kuiper will meet its obligations and that speeds will be reasonably fast – something that nobody can know until it happens.

Where Were the ISPs?

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about how the BEAD grant program got off track. Even before the current giant swing in rules by NTIA, the program had a lot of problems. One of my observations about the BEAD grant program is that ISPs were not an integral part of developing the grant rules. ISPs were largely ignored from the start and were only brought into the BEAD process after the rules were largely set in concrete.

This is actually not that unusual in the world of grants, but BEAD was supposed to be different. The BEAD legislation required State Broadband Offices to reach out to stakeholders in “every corner of a state” to solicit feedback on what should be accomplished with the BEAD program.

The BEAD process wasn’t just about infrastructure and also included funding that might be used for distributing computers and devices and training people how to use them. It made sense for Broadband Offices to reach out to listen, particularly since many States had newly created Broadband Offices that had recently been created to handle the grants funded by the Capital Project Funds.

I sat through the outreach process in a number of States, and was disappointed when, in many States, there was no listening involved, just Broadband Offices talking about the BEAD timeline. But the real flaw of the outreach program to me was that ISPs were not considered as major stakeholders in this process. For the infrastructure portion of BEAD, ISPs are the only stakeholders that really matter, because they are the ones who will raise the needed matching funds, build, and operate the grant-funded networks.

A lot of the problems encountered in the BEAD process could have been avoided if NTIA and States had asked ISPs upfront what it would take for BEAD to be attractive to them. The first time I read through the legislation, I identified a number of requirements that ISPs were going to hate. In practice, many of the BEAD processes turned out to be even worse than I had feared. For example, the map challenge process, as devised by NTIA, was a total nightmare that had no chance of functioning as intended. States could have done a much better job, and many States already had created their own broadband maps of the areas that needed better broadband. Those efforts were ignored.

I had naively hoped that since BEAD was the first grant program to require public feedback, States would end up loosening the worst of the rules to make the program work. To me, the ideal grant program allows a Broadband Office to waive requirements that are a problem for specific ISPs. The State broadband grants in many states were flexible to make them work.

Unfortunately, any hope that BEAD could work well died when it became clear that States were not going to be given much latitude. From the outset, it quickly became clear that NTIA was not going to be an advisor to State broadband programs. Instead, NTIA dictated practically every aspect of the BEAD rules and process. NTIA left very little to State discretion.

When it’s over, I think the NTIA decision to take full charge of BEAD will ultimately prove to be the fatal flaw of the program. It didn’t have to happen this way. It was clear in the legislation that Congress intended States to develop unique plans for BEAD that worked for each of them. We know what a grant program looks like the federal governments hands over the reins to States. The Capital Projects Fund gave over $9 billion to States to award broadband infrastructure grants. Treasury created some basic rules but largely let States decide how to implement and operate the grant programs. States took a wide variety of approaches to choosing ISPs for the funding. In the end, CPF was a State-directed grant program with only light oversight provided by the federal government. If NTIA had adopted the same philosophy with BEAD, construction would have started for grant-funded projects a few years ago.

Any infrastructure grant program can only be successful if ISPs are willing to participate. State Broadband Offices understand this and were adept at making State grant programs work.

BEAD became so out of kilter that many States ended up with a large number of locations where no ISPs other than Satellite providers made bids. If States had run these programs from the start, they would have found a way to bring local ISPs into the mix. They would have been able to fund a lot of fiber, but would not have hesitated to fund other technologies when that made sense. And they would have accomplished all of the steps required by the legislation in a lot less than four years.